thank you for your opinion, but you didn't tell me anything helpful. As I already said, I'm absolutely aware of the fact that these:

That sounds to me like the whole Tibetan "bodhisattva" ideal would then just be wrong, wouldn't it? Because the "bodhisattva" (bodhisakta) would then be in fact just "one who's seeking awakening", like me for example.

When the Buddha was talking about himself as a "bodhisatta" (Pali), he said, the Buddha would not have meant that he was an "enlightenment being" (bodhisattva) but "one seeking awakening" (bodhisakta).

are just assumptions having no value if it is not fact. This is the third time I say it: I'm asking for clarification primary, not to make claims.

Paññāsikhara wrote:All one can really say, is that the term "sattva" in "bodhisattva" is not necessarily from Prakrit "satta". It may come from Sanskrit "sakta", Prakritized as "satta", and then later wrongly back translated into "sattva". Maybe. Where is the evidence? Where do we actually have cases of the Sanskrit word "bodhi-sakta" in the first place? We need some evidence otherwise it is an untried hypothesis.

I don't have any evidence. That's why I'm asking and made this thread. What I said would be just a direct consequence, if the assumption is correct, no more, no less. You said it, too:

Paññāsikhara wrote:

acinteyyo wrote:When the Buddha was talking about himself as a "bodhisatta" (Pali), he said, the Buddha would not have meant that he was an "enlightenment being" (bodhisattva) but "one seeking awakening" (bodhisakta).

Only if the above assumption is correct.

acinteyyo wrote:That sounds to me like the whole Tibetan "bodhisattva" ideal would then just be wrong, wouldn't it?Because the "bodhisattva" (bodhisakta) would then be in fact just "one who's seeking awakening", like me for example.

Only if the above assumption is correct.

Paññāsikhara wrote:For this sort of argument, one will certainly have to known both Sanskrit and the Prakrits.

Obviously this is certainly necessary.

Paññāsikhara wrote:That won't be enough, however, and you'll also need to know how various traditions understood the word "bodhisatta" / "bodhisattva". Etymological definitions that fly in the face of actual linguistic usage but are used for such claims about whether a tradition is "wrong", can be quite misleading. The meaning of the term "bodhisattva", and also related "mahasattva" is complex, you may wish to check out: Dayal, H (1932): The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, Motilal Banarsidass: New Delhi. Kajiyama Yuichi 梶山雄一 (1982): “On the Meanings of the Words Bodhisattva and Mahāsattva in Prajñāpāramitā Literature”, pp. 253-270, in Y. Kajiyama, Studies in Buddhist Philosophy (Selected Papers), ed. Katsumi Mimaki et al. Rinsen Book Co.: Kyoto. 1989. But even these studies are not exhaustive.

If pali is the source from where a transcription has been made into sanskrit and what the venerable bhikkhu told me is correct, then I don't think it is necessary to know how other traditions understood the word "bodhisattva", because this word would just be wrong, it should not exist this way. Any interpretation or understanding of this word would be meaningless in my opinion.If pali is not the source from where a transcription has been made into sanskrit and/or "bodhisattva" is the right sanskrit counterpart of the pali "bodhisatta", then I think you would be right and one would need to know how various traditions understood the word and so on.

So the questions I'm interested in are:

Is the correct Sanskrit counterpart of the Pali "bodhisatta" really "bodhisakta" (and is, therefore "bodhisattva" an incorrect translation)?Are the Pali texts (containing the word "bodhisatta") the source from where transcriptions has been made into Sanskrit texts of other traditions? What emerged first out of Prakrit, Sanskrit or Pali or maby both emerged quite simultaneously?

best wishes, acinteyyo

Thank you very much. It seems to be much more complicated as I thought. Since I'm not willing to attain all the necessary knowledge to answer those questions sufficiently, I'll have to leave the whole matter aside. Guess it's better for me to refocus on practice.

The Tibetan concept of bodhisattva is not a Buddha but "just" one bound for Buddhahood. There are several interpretations as far as I know, ranging from someone who takes a vow to become enlightened for the benefit of all beings to someone who attains nirvana but decides to "leave" it again to reach the full Buddhahood: a sammasambuddha who teaches and helps sentient beings to attain Liberation. It seems to me there are several similarities to the Theravadan concept of aryan (someone who has already experienced nibbana, is develloping bodhicitta and all that) but they are not identical.

This really does not address the question.

No? Yes, maybe you are right. But I got the impression that the OP does not know how the term bodhisattva is used in Tibetan Buddhism in the first place. One can get an empowerment, speak a vow, and consider oneself a bodhisattva. Hardly an enlightened being but just this definition of the OP "one who's seeking awakening":

Because the "bodhisattva" (bodhisakta) would then be in fact just "one who's seeking awakening", like me for example.

Not quite, in Tibetan Buddhism you would need a transmission and speak a vow (in Tibetan if possible). Only THEN you can consider yourself a bodhisattva.